Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience (Senator McKenzie) and the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and Gallagher and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to targets for carbon emissions and to Cabinet solidarity.

It's clear from the answers to questions from Senator McKenzie today and, indeed, throughout this week that at the heart of this faux negotiation between the Nationals and the Liberals—the will they or won't they—is the very existence of the National Party. There are only two reasons that the National Party actually exist these days. One is for pork-barrelling; the other is for culture wars. Senator McKenzie has brazenly confirmed with her answers in question time today and this week. They're stringing things along in an attempt to extort as much pork as they can out of the Liberal Party. They've even appointed a four-person committee to actually look at how much pork they can get and what they can do with it. That is what the National Party are up to this week. That is why they are stringing things along in this faux negotiation. Exhibit A in this is actually Senator McKenzie herself, the person who lost her job over pork-barrelling and has now been brought back into the ministry. It's only the Nationals that could be capable of doing something. They don't punish someone who's been engaged in pork-barrelling; they actually reward them and get them back in cabinet, and then put them at the heart of what they are up to this week. That says all about the National Party that that is what they are trying to do this week. They're trying to extort as much as they can out of the Libs and then go about pork-barrelling in the lead-up to an election.

The second reason why the Nationals exist these days is the culture wars. That's all they've got to offer the people of regional Australia—not a vision for the future, not setting out something they want to achieve. All they want to do is engage in the culture war. They never attempt to have a positive vision for regional Australia; it's all about the scare campaign. We can see elements of that. We can see the way that Senator Canavan's behaving. They want to ensure that they've still got that ability. Again, Senator McKenzie let the cat out of the bag. In her answer to a question yesterday, she said, 'The only reason they exist is to try and stop Labor from being in government.' There's no actual positive vision; there's no actual reason for being in government. The only reason they exist is that they want to try to stop Labor from being in government. That is how sad the National Party have become in this place. I spend a lot of time in regional Queensland. I've got a second office in Gladstone. I spend a lot of time in Gladstone, in the seat of Flynn. I do a lot of travel through Central Queensland. And what is so frustrating, why we are so frustrated by this motivation of the National Party, is that there are so many opportunities that are out there in regional Queensland—be it jobs, be it the future—and there are businesses that are actually going about taking those opportunities, but with no help from the federal government. Businesses are actually spending their own money because they see opportunities and they want to do the right thing by the planet in the long term, so they're actually investing their own money in these opportunities.

I was in Emerald a couple of months ago with the shadow Treasurer. We visited an Emerald bus company that does a lot of charter work. It does significant amounts of work for the mining industry—taking in workers, taking out workers and doing it safely so that the workers aren't driving tired after a shift. It's spending hundreds of thousands of dollars converting its bus fleet to hydrogen with no help from the government whatsoever. This is a bus company, a business group, that wants to do the right thing by the country. It sees opportunity, it's prepared to spend its hard-earned money transitioning its fleet because it's the right thing to do in Emerald, in the seat of Flynn.

We saw what the state government did with Fortescue Future Industries just a couple of Sundays ago. It was a really exciting announcement in Gladstone about hydrogen. Hundreds of jobs are at stake there. I was in Gladstone a few days after that announcement and I actually got the sense that the people of Gladstone saw this as a real initiative. They know this is going to deliver jobs. They know it's going to have a beneficial impact for their local community. This is what the future looks like—but, again, without any help from the federal government. The state government has had to go it alone.

The week before that in Gladstone, we saw the joint announcement made by Rio Tinto and the state government, once again, about the future of their refineries in Gladstone. They're looking at clean energy that is actually going to power those refineries into the future. Those refineries use about 20 per cent of Queensland's electricity. They're significant energy users, but it shows you, again, that they're looking at what the future looks like for them and they understand the role that clean energy will play.

It is so frustrating that the Nationals are having this faux war while regional Queensland and other parts of the country are getting on with the job of transitioning the country. If only we had a federal government that was actually prepared to work with them! How much more could we achieve then?

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Labor Party for raising this very important issue, because, from what I have just heard, what has just been highlighted to this chamber is that our tactics are working. We are on a path to lowering emissions through technology, not taxes. Private enterprise is working with government to achieve a lower emissions future. It is exactly what this side of the chamber has been saying for the last couple of years. Everyone wants to focus on the fact we haven't got a carbon tax and that, therefore, without a carbon tax, we're not addressing net zero, we're not addressing carbon emissions without a carbon tax. Well, what a crock. What an absolute load of rubbish, which has just been proven by Senator Chisholm's contribution.

Yes, through our road map to a lower emissions future, through our technology not taxes policies, private enterprise is getting on with the job, as are our government agencies. Australia has reduced its emissions by 20 per cent since 2005, the majority of which has occurred since we took government in 2013. That is only one per cent less than what has been achieved by the EU. We have done it through technology, not taxes. We have done it by expanding consumer choice, not restricting it. We have done it by partnering with the private sector, not hitting them with a big stick. We have done it by consolidating our advantage. We have done it by seeing Australia adopt rooftop solar panels at a rate higher than anywhere else on the planet. That is because we have not taxed people out of the market. We have not made it impossible.

What I hear on the ground, even from people who absolutely believe in climate change, who absolutely support moving towards a low-emissions future, is that they are scared for their future. I've heard from farmers who acknowledge climate change, who live with climate change, who've lived through drought and with flood, who deal with the threat of bushfires year in, year out. What they don't want to see is them being locked off their farms for some arbitrary native vegetation target that does not achieve carbon abatement that is as good as its alternatives. But that's what we saw the last time the Labor Party was in power. We saw farmers lose their right to farm. They ignored the potential for soil carbon capture and storage through cropping enterprises. They ignored the potential to reduce methane emissions from livestock by changing dietary requirements. Since we've been in power the CSIRO, working with James Cook University, have developed fantastic seaweed based feedstock for the livestock industry that is achieving huge emissions reductions, phenomenal emissions reductions. These people should be rewarded, not lambasted because they haven't implemented a tax.

I've heard from miners worried that we're just going to shut the industry overnight, which is also a crock. There are 129 new coal fired power stations currently under construction by countries that have signed up to net zero. Guess whose coal they want. They want ours, because ours burns more cleanly and more efficiently. So I'm not shutting the coal industry, and I won't support any moves that do. I back the mining industry, because that's where we get our lithium from for the batteries that underpin our renewable energy.

Thank you, Labor, for highlighting all the progress that we as a nation have made. I wish we would all get behind the achievements that both private enterprise and government agencies have made to get us to 20 per cent reductions, to get us on the pathway to Paris. (Time expired)

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week has been an interesting one to say the least. On one hand we have had the coalition, in particular members of the National Party, say that they have a plan to reduce emissions, but on the other hand they still want to support some of the biggest polluters in this country. It is a reasonable statement to make that we as parliamentarians are by no means strangers to conflict, particularly in this place here in the Senate, but today in question time there was a prominent illustration of this, where our passion and our disagreements with each other on what is best for our nation's future were on full display for all to see.

I have been here for only two years, but from my time previously in another capacity, it is very uncommon for us to see publicly such great levels between members of the government itself—division between the opposition and the government, sure; but public division between ministers and backbenchers and between the Prime Minister and his own Deputy Prime Minister? That is not a common occurrence. Yet that is what has been on show to the Australian public right in the middle of a global pandemic, right in the middle of our economy's start to recovery. In fact, division between the two coalition parties has been on display for quite some time now. Those sitting on the opposite side of the chamber from them have been fortunate to have front-row seats, so to speak, to the great climate stoush between the Liberals and the Nationals, to see firsthand and live in colour the continued fraying of the already delicate coalition agreement.

What a debacle it has been. The quiet little meetings becoming public press conferences in the hallway, the private sledging spilling out onto our television screens—one could be forgiven for thinking that this stoush was some kind of valiant defence by the junior coalition partner of a policy position that was at the heart of the concerns of their own constituency. Regrettably, it is not. What it is, in reality, is the resistance of a few against not just the tide of history but the wishes of their own supporters. Whilst those Nationals opposite would wish to have you believe that they are standing up for the battling farmer in refusing to come to the table on climate policy, in reality this is not what is happening on the ground.

What is happening here is the Nationals are again proving themselves to be an island on this issue—cast adrift, all on their own, with barely a stakeholder to keep them company. Take, for instance, the National Farmers Federation, who themselves have already committed to a net carbon zero by 2050. Take, for instance, the grain growers, who themselves have endorsed the National Farmers Federation's own plans and are committed to developing a grain specific target for 2030—not 2050, but 2030. Take, for instance, the red meat industry, which I love and support wholeheartedly, who, themselves, have set a target of carbon neutrality by 2030. So exactly who is it the Nationals are purporting to stand up for, and what exactly is the cost of their resistance? I know that there are many farmers, who I have met, who are lamenting the fact that those opposite are failing to take the issue seriously, failing to accept the challenge and invest in their future prosperity.

Farmers are disproportionately effected by climate change. They will gain directly from reducing emissions and they will be better off through increases in productivity, whatever the global effort does to limit further warming. So, where is the plan from the Nationals? Australia's farmers want more climate action. They want to be part of the solution. It is no wonder why regional Australians are wary of the Nationals. Refusing to provide our agricultural producers and the regions with the tools they need to prosper in the years to come is not a plan. They are failing in their own leadership. (Time expired)

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am relieved to hear Senator Ciccone express his support for the red meat industry, and I look forward to not only having a steak with him soon but also perhaps enjoying some of that Grains Council barley used to produce some pretty cracking beers. But I do welcome the end, hopefully, of the ALP targeting the cattle industry with their ridiculous notions around methane emissions from cows.

The Morrison government absolutely understands that Australians are looking to reduce emissions into the future. They're looking for a future that is clean air and clean water and a great environment for their children, their children's children and even their children's children's grandchildren. However, we do understand the pressures that everyday Australians and their families face, and we stand here looking to technology, not taxes. The reason we want to look to technology is that we will never support the imposition of a carbon tax on family. We will not support the imposition of an ETS—or whichever acronym, you guys, on the other side want to dress it up as. Heaven forbid the government benches are ever graced by those opposite again, because we know the first thing we will see is an effort to tax those everyday Australians.

What we do also understand on this side of the chamber is that net zero by 2050 does not mean zero emissions. I know the far end of this chamber have a little bit of an inability to decipher that fact, but we know that families rely on energy to keep their homes and their businesses running and the certainty that, when they need the power, they can turn it on, but this security is not achieved through taxing them and by pandering to some left-wing anti coal and gas agenda. What's also important to note, as Australians, is that 40 per cent of our emissions are actually the result of our export products. They're actually the result of how this country engages with the world and, in fact, the only two countries that have similar economies to us in this matter are New Zealand and Canada. When it comes to reducing emissions, we are streets ahead of both of those countries. We have done this through adopting a suite of technology products and continuing to support the markets and businesses to invest in this technology to drive emissions lower, without imposing additional tax burdens on families, small businesses and everyday Australians.

One of the things that this government is incredibly enthusiastic about is seeing the hydrogen sector grow. We've only recently opened up a new round of grants for seven potential hydrogen hubs, one of them in the Hunter region, an area that I get to spend a great deal of time in, and I am absolutely thrilled to see that a bus company from the Central Coast Hunter region is already looking to move its fleet of buses to hydrogen. We are going to see more and more hydrogen as part of the heavy vehicle, energy and transport mix.

I also had the privilege and the absolute pleasure to work with Energy Renaissance and turn the sod on the first ever lithium-ion battery storage factory being developed in Australia. For those who don't understand the importance of this, what this means is that when we start to develop lithium-ion battery storage we will actually be in a position to capture energy. One in four households currently have solar panels, as Australia has led the way in solar panel uptake. By bringing lithium-ion battery storage into the mix, particularly at the household level, you can then harness that energy; you can hold that energy that's created at two o'clock in the afternoon when the sun's at its highest and use it when you're watching Netflix at 9.30 that night. By using storage facilities and with that storage becoming cheaper and more portable, we will see household emissions reduce.

But we do understand that heavy industry, like aluminium smelters, require affordable, reliable baseload power. That's why those opposite saw the resignation of the fantastic member for Hunter—who I am going to miss—Joel Fitzgibbon. Joel knew the importance that coal was going to have in this energy mix for a substantial period of time to come. Coal is not going anywhere soon. I know it upsets these guys—they are very upset about it—but coal will be with us for a while. Do you know why we need it as well? It's not only for our heavy industries. It's actually racist to want to take it away. Our coal helps developing nations move their countries forward.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who is in charge of your climate plan this week in Canberra? Who is in charge of the government's climate policy? At the start of this week, everyone thought that it was the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, actually leading the government's plan on net zero—to the complete horror, or course, of most Australians. But now what we hear from the government is that Mr Morrison is back. He's back in charge. But the question is: is he really back in charge? He's clearly not so much back in charge that he feels confident that he can take his plan for net zero emissions to his joint party room for sign off. He is not back in charge quite enough to even dream of legislating net zero emissions, because he cannot count on the members of his own government to vote for that plan. The Prime Minister is not in charge enough to keep the Nationals in his coalition government remotely in line. He's not in charge enough to stop his own Deputy Prime Minister from issuing threats: threats of 'a very hard time' for the government ahead. He is not in charge enough to stop the Nationals from issuing threats that things will 'get ugly', threats that were doubled down on by the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate today, when Senator McKenzie repeated these claims that things are going to get ugly in the government on climate change policy. The Prime Minister is not in charge enough to stop the threats to undermine harmonious government. He's not in charge enough to stop the threats to undermine cabinet solidarity coming from the members of his own team. He's not in charge enough to stop the threats of members of his own government to resign from that government. And the Prime Minister is not in charge enough of his resources minister, Mr Pitt, who still refuses to say that human induced climate change is actually real and actually happening.

All of this today, this complete mess, Senator Ruston describes as a respectful discussion. You would hate to see what a backroom brawl looks like for this coalition government if this is a respectful discussion. Perhaps the government should be more supportive of the Respectful Relationships program in our schools, and perhaps some of the members of the government should go back to school and take a few units of that course if they want to learn how to have respectful discussions. But apparently this is how it's done in the Morrison government today. This is how they deal with the biggest challenges that we'll face in our time. At 10 minutes to midnight, literally days away from Glasgow—days away from one of the biggest decisions this country will ever make—the people of Australia don't even know who is in charge of our climate action plan, just days away from COP26. The people of Australia don't know who is in charge of their jobs, of jobs for the future.

What the people of Australia do know is that their government are in complete meltdown at one of the most critical times in our country's history. They are a complete shambles, a complete stinking mess. They are a hot, steaming mess right now on one of the most important issues that our country faces. And all of that after eight years—eight years for a stinking mess at 10 minutes to midnight. That is the best that the Morrison government have. That is what they have to offer on one of the biggest challenges that we all face.

But, as we all know, and as Australians know, it's always too little, too late with Mr Morrison. It is Australia's workers who are paying the price, because there is a global race on right now to seize the opportunity that climate action provides us. But we know how the Prime Minister feels about races: he doesn't like to get into them too quickly. This is just another race that the Prime Minister is losing for our country, with absolutely catastrophic consequences.

This government is a complete stinking mess when it comes to action on climate, and a complete steaming mess when it comes to the jobs of the future that we should be embracing. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Seselja) to a question without notice she asked today relating to climate finance. The world is cooking, and the Morrison government is sitting on its hands: no targets, no plan and no action. While nature may not have intended to discriminate, geopolitical boundaries that divide the world into the Global South and the Global North make sure that patterns of systemic discrimination continue, as the impacts of climate change, natural disasters and pollution fall disproportionately on communities in low-income nations. The insatiable appetite of wealthy nations like Australia for digging up and burning coal, oil and gas is sealing an unpalatable fate for billions of people around the world. We are witnesses to an intergenerational and global theft that will deprive future generations of the opportunity to make a dignified life and where countries least responsible for the climate crisis are already living through the worst of it.

Pacific islanders are watching their homes and their homelands sink as their very existence is threatened by sea-level rise, flooding and coastal erosion. Their children and grandchildren will bear the brunt of Australia's inaction. They've urged the Morrison government to take urgent action on climate. They have pleaded with us. They have condemned us for our weak and unambitious targets. They are demanding we honour the global climate accord.

In 2009, during the Copenhagen Accord, wealthy nations committed to US$100 billion in international climate finance funding each year, by 2030, but they have fallen far short of this. They have failed the nations which they have used as dumping grounds for their greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia too has failed to pay our fair share of climate finance and reparations commensurate with our historical and ongoing contribution to the climate crisis. The Liberal-National government have not made a single payment to the Green Climate Fund since 2018. Today, a group of NGOs have called on Australia to rise to the challenge and immediately double climate finance contributions to $3 billion over the period from 2020 to 2025. That's the very least we can do. The Greens believe that we should add another $1.5 billion to this in direct reparations for the damage already done.

The inequality between the Global North and South is rooted in the exploitative, extractive and destructive legacy of colonialism and imperialism. This is an issue of global justice. It is about righting historic wrongs. These payments are not favours bestowed, they are debts owed.

The Morrison government is not at all interested in honouring commitments to the Green Climate Fund or paying its fair share of climate finance. Australia is dead last on climate action out of 193 UN member countries. It is so embarrassing, sad and heartbreaking to see that we have become such laggards on climate action and protecting the environment. When the world was debating solutions to climate change, the Liberals were still fighting over whether it exists. Now we are in a critical decade and the world has moved on to talking about 2030 targets, but the Liberals and Nationals are fighting over 2050.

Public poll after poll reveals how the vast majority of people living in Australia want real action on climate. Even that is not enough to wake up the Liberals from their climate stupor. But they are getting better at greenwashing, like their partners, the News Corp media. They're both trying to rewrite history with their miserable commitments on the one hand, while still pushing dirty coal, oil and gas on the other. Here's a newsflash for you: no-one has forgotten that News Corp and the Liberals and Nationals blocked climate action for decades.

It's time to stop digging up coal, gas and oil. It's time to stop handing millions of dollars of public money over to billionaires, hoping they will save us from the climate crisis. This is utter stupidity. It's time to aim high, to legislate a 75 per cent emissions cut by 2030 and net zero by 2035. It's way beyond time to take responsibility for the role that we have played in creating the climate crisis. We must fulfil our obligations. We must pay our fair share. Let's go to Glasgow COP26 with our heads held high as leaders, not as outliers. It's time for climate justice.

Question agreed to.